Seems like a good plan after not doing it the first time Trump won.
Useless welts.
I remember they said the same thing about Clinton and how she burned through a billion dollars in her attempt to buy a nomination. In the end, Harris brought in a bunch of Clinton leeches to destroy her own campaign. The consultant class ate well this election cycle and they didn’t even have to run a campaign nearly as long.
In the end, Harris brought in a bunch of Clinton leeches to destroy her own campaign.
What?
“Clinton leeches” have been running the DNC for decades…
It’s not that they latched onto Kamala. It’s that they had already fixed the primary and attaching themselves to Kamala was a condition of them give Kamala the nomination.
Hillary’s people are Biden’s people, would have been Kamala’s people.
For 8 years a group of unelected now liberals have been deciding our candidate and running our campaigns.
And those people are fucking idiots
Listening to voters instead of donors would be a good start. The corporate fellating is not winning them any elections
Or at least pretend to listen and deny their 900 page book outlining the actual plan.
That only works when your supporters are racist dipshits
Wait they haven’t already?
They aren’t going to either.
Saying they will is farther than they usually get. They usually just blame voters for not backing whoever their primary fuckery pushed as the nomination.
They did one after Hillary, it included Bernie folks, guess what happened
As much as some people like Bernie, he was a bad choice as well. He likes to promise lots but that is easy to do if you know those programs will never be viable.
Stop voting for people based on looks or last name or being extreme. Good leaders are the ones with experience and who have moderate and sustainable platforms.
Alternately keep putting in nut cases.
They learned all the wrong lessons, and then fucked with the next two primaries?
They fucked over the Bernie people
Oh, I noticed, being one of them
You want Jamie Harrison to investigate himself?
His only qualification was being able to raise an obscene amount of money from dubious sources and then losing the election.
He did what he was brought on board to do, why would he then snitch on himself?
The chair election is 2/2/25. Depending on who wins we have a chance at finding out, but there’s also a good chance they just cover it up.
The DNC is a private organization and has no obligation for transparency.
It’s only been like a month
How Democrats used their vast resources has come under particular scrutiny after Harris’ presidential campaign raised — and spent — a stunning $1.4 billion in 107 days. The pace rattled supporters, donors and even some on the campaign, who complained of lavish spending on celebrities and ongoing appeals for money even after Harris lost the election.
The only reason why we found out about 2015 shenanigans was neoliberals tucking tail after trump won so Donna Brazile had a chance to see the books.
This is a huge chance to pry the party out of neoliberal hands, because Jamie Harrison is acting like most of Biden’s picks and resigning before things get difficult.
But there is zero fucking chance $1,700,000,000 was raised and spent in 107 days and there wasn’t any grifting going on. The purpose of Kamala’s campaign wasn’t to win an election, it was to churn a bunch of money so people could take their slices.
We can’t afford to do it a fourth time in a row.
Winning the election needs to be the priority of the party.
I said this in another thread - 1.7 billion in 107 days means spending $15,887,850 a day. Let’s be generous and assume a crazy 12 hour work day, 7 days a week.
That’s $1,323,987 an hour, every hour. 12 hours a day, for 107 days… with NOTHING to show for it.
It’s been Brewster’s Millions since 2016, and at this point the only thing crazier than the party trying it a fourth time is us letting the same people keep calling the shots.
They pick their candidate long before the primary, and before 10 states vote they declare a winner and say it’s over. If a Republican wins, it’s just not a big deal to them.
Because in four years they’ll get even more money to make sure a progressive can’t make it to the general
2020 was the worst, picking Biden after the 3rd primary, and that one being South Carolina…
Because we really want red states determining who the Democratic candidate is… 🙄
I’d love to see it by last election’s turnout percentage.
Vermont went 64% D, let them go first.
Wyoming got 26%, so they go last.
Some state wants to go first? Tell em to work on their turnout in the general.
It seems common sense, and in a close race it trickles down to battleground states after the main voting blocks, while maintaining their voter engagement.
Plus while I don’t think primaries campaigns hurt generals like the DNC keeps saying, this let’s the Dem on Dem ads be ran in places that are voting blue no matter who.
I want same day country wide just like the regular election. Primaries are an electability test and need to be treated as such
Ooh… that’s a FANTASTIC idea that Iowa and New Hampshire will never let happen. ;)
I think the trick is each state would need to run two primaries, but then some already do, and some run a caucus AND a primary.
The problem here would be burning through all the blue states and not getting enough delegates to become the nominee. Then you really WOULD have Red states picking the candidate.
Yeah, based on this delegate counter:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/delegate-count-by-state
By the time you burned through all the blue states, you’d have assigned 2,541 delegates with 1,976 needed to be the nominee. It’s possible that someone wouldn’t hit that number just based on the blue states.
Under this model, the Democratic Primary for 2028 would be this, then invert it for the Republican Primary.
District of Columbia - 90.3% - 39 delegates
Vermont - 63.2% - 33
Maryland - 62.6% - 134
Massachusetts - 61.2% - 132
Hawaii - 60.6% - 24
California - 58.5% - 587
Washington - 57.2% - 132
Delaware - 56.6% - 37
Connecticut - 56.4% - 88
New York - 55.9% - 274
Rhode Island - 55.5% - 45
Oregon - 55.3% - 89
Illinois - 54.4% - 222
Colorado - 54.2% - 104
Maine - 52.4% - 46
New Jersey - 52.0% - 175
New Mexico - 51.9% - 56
Virginia - 51.8% - 99
NE-2 - 51.3% - 65
Minnesota - 50.9% - 114
New Hampshire - 50.7% - 46Pennsylvania - 48.7%
Wisconsin - 48.7%
Georgia - 48.5%
Michigan - 48.3%
North Carolina - 47.7%
Nevada - 47.5%
Arizona - 46.7%
ME-2 - 44.8%
Ohio - 43.9%
Florida - 43.0%
Iowa - 42.5%
Texas - 42.5%
Alaska - 41.4%
Kansas - 41.0%
South Carolina - 40.4%
Missouri - 40.1%
Indiana - 39.6%
Nebraska - 38.9%
Montana - 38.5%
Louisiana - 38.2%
Mississippi - 38.0%
Utah - 37.8%
Tennessee - 34.5%
South Dakota - 34.2%
Alabama - 34.1%
Kentucky - 33.9%
Arkansas - 33.6%
Oklahoma - 31.9%
North Dakota - 30.5%
Idaho - 30.4%
West Virginia - 28.1%
Wyoming - 25.8%
We want it so much they were moved to first! It was so clearly a corrupt move and a punishment to two states that said he sucked. Not that Iowa and New Hampshire deserved their prominence, but the whole fiasco had a very clear narrative.
Brewster had a way more compelling platform, though (“vote none of the above”).
I agree with you on the money. It doesn’t make any sense to me. And everyone was a volunteer too? Like you said, how do you spend that much money in such a short amount of time, and then immediately roll over and say “oh well, we lost” like they have?
It’s not a freaking game of touch football. It’s the future of the country and everyone that lives in it.
Goodhart’s law strikes again.
They can’t tune their process for ‘win election’, because that’s only one sample every four years, and it’s a binary value.
So instead they tune it for ‘raise campaign funds’ as a proxy measure for ‘win election’, and that’s vastly more responsive; they can optimise the crap out of that.
This also means that a bunch of influential people are able to skim significant amounts off the top, so they’re not minded to change it. They’re stinking rich so they don’t have to care about the actual political outcome - and the more people are suffering, the more they’ll donate.
The trump win was a massive windfall for the next cycle of fundraising.
Was it after that election constituents sued the DNC for not even trying to keep promises made on the campaign trail and the DNC successfully argued they had no obligation to even try to implement campaign promises?
Anti-Status Quo candidates win in this era. That means Obama, Sanders (hypothetically), and Trump. Clinton Biden and Harris were status quo.
What you need is more support for progressive candidates and fewer centrists.
They need a compare and contrast with 2016 as well…
2016 - Clinton failed to campaign in key states like Michigan and Wisconsin, said something idiotic about coal mining that couldn’t be walked back that tanked her in Pennsylvania. Lost the election 304 to 227.
2024 - Harris DID campaign in key states like Michigan and Wisconsin, attempted to back-track her previous statements on fracking but nobody in Pennsylvania believed her. Lost the election 312 to 226.
Trump actually gained +1 state in 2024 vs. 2016.
What do these two candidates have in common?
https://theconversation.com/why-do-so-many-believe-hillary-clinton-is-inauthentic-67302
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/7/3/harris-authenticity-problem/?ref=readtangle.com
Watching both women, I told my wife (a big Clinton and Harris supporter), that they both come across as plastic and fake. Their smiles don’t quite reach their eyes. They’re trying to ACT authentic, not genuinely BE authentic.
Clinton almost comes across as psychopathic in this regard and while Harris isn’t quite so bad, the reaction in her camp to her fakeness didn’t help, especially when it came to things like her fake laugh and the coconut tree comment.
https://youtube.com/shorts/br6EHiAWJ_M
I think, in the end, picking Tim Walz as VP highlighted this lack of authenticity because there could not have been a candidate more authentic than Walz and by comparison, Harris looked worse.
Watching both women, I told my wife (a big Clinton and Harris supporter), that they both come across as plastic and fake. Their smiles don’t quite reach their eyes. They’re trying to ACT authentic, not genuinely BE authentic.
Clinton almost comes across as psychopathic in this regard and while Harris isn’t quite so bad, the reaction in her camp to her fakeness didn’t help, especially when it came to things like her fake laugh and the coconut tree comment.
When I hear comments like these, only one thing comes to mind:
I’m a woman, and though I agree that the undertones came off that way, the reality is that I agree with the comment. Cori and AOC don’t come off as fake. Plenty of other women don’t. Two things can be true at once. Women can be held to a higher standard, and some women can fall below the standard set for men. Voters always talk about how Trump is relatable and an outsider, and these women do not come off as relatable and definitely come off as insiders. It’s possible that a man would be viewed less negatively than them, but if that’s the case we need to either only run men (if we want to actually win), or be honest about the “likability” of our female candidates. Unfortunately, running doomed candidates is not actually gonna move the needle on this one, at least not in our favor.
Men do it too, they also don’t get elected. See Bob Dole, or Mitt Romney.
People saying what they think they need to say to get elected will always lose to people who genuinely believe what they are saying, even if what they believe is batshit crazy.
Men do what too, come across as “plastic and fake”?
And that sinks their elections? Not coming across as genuine?
We’re talking about Harris vs Trump, right?
Can you say with a straight face that you have ever believed anything you have ever heard out of Trump’s mouth came across as genuine? Not just opportunistic? Not just tailored to his audience?
The man who literally slathers himself in excessive amounts of bronzer doesn’t come across as plastic?
The arguments about successful female politicians coming across as insincere are tiring. Respectfully, I think you might have missed the point of me linking to that specific video. It is all about the unfair expectations projected onto women, to be one way, but to not too much that way, but also be the opposite way too. It is all about being forced to conform to societal expectations while also being expected to come across with sincerity. It is literally impossible.
We’re talking about Harris vs Trump, right?
We’re talking about Democratic voters. What Trump voters believe does not matter in Harris’ turnout.
And there are plenty of women more genuine than Harris in American politics. AOC, Warren, Tlaib just off the top of my head. Harris did not lose because Democratic voters are sexist, she lost because they also want change, and Harris refused to even promise it to them.
Trump is genuine because no one would pretend to be that much of a shithead
